New Jersey Board of Nurses Meeting

Summary of New Jersey Board of Nurses Meeting

The meeting was held on October 1, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. in Trenton, New Jersey, at the Public Hearing room located in the institution’s arena. The institution was incepted in 1912 to safeguard the health, safety, and subsequent welfare of New Jersey residents by essentially ensuring that the individuals obligated to provide healthcare services are thoroughly qualified and trained (NJCCN, 2021). Besides evaluating acquired apprenticeships, this Board of nursing also registers nurses according to the nursing criteria which govern the nursing profession in New Jersey (NJCCN, 2021). The membership responsibility under this Board is specialized according to the department a nurse is assimilated into; such departments include sexual assault forensic nurses, advanced practice nurses, home-health aides, among others (NJCCN, 2021).

The October meeting was attended by a sufficient quorum that included 13 members who joined while one joined through teleconference because he traveled when the meeting was in course. Out of the 13 members present during the meeting, three special individuals were hard to miss. These included the Board’s Executive Director, the Board Staff, and the Delivery Assurance Group’s leader. The meeting was chaired by the Chairperson (Mark Pederson), who played a key role in enhancing the success of the meeting. Further to its timely adjournment owing to the closure of the building, which was imminent at 6:00 p.m.

When the meeting was called to order at 4:02 p.m., the Chairman took the members through the Statement of Adequate Public Notice as required by the authority of the Open Public Meetings Act. Ideally, this statement espouses that before a public meeting is commenced, adequate notice must have been given to all the members expected to attend to enable them to rigorously prepare for the meeting in advance (CTAS, 2021). To this end, the concept of “adequate public notice” articulates that the meeting notice must have been placed at a location where the members regularly associate to guarantee their awareness of the meeting (CTAS, 2021). Besides, the particulars of the notice must effectively describe the purpose of the meeting and its relevance to the company or institution (CTAS, 2021). Finally, the Statement of Public Notice requires that the notice for a meeting must have been furnished to the members sufficiently in advance of the meeting to prevent inconveniencing members through a short and unreasonable window of notice (CTAS, 2021). After ensuring that the object of the meeting aligned with the Open Public Meetings Act, the Chairman took a roll call of the meeting and confirmed that 13 individuals were present, which satisfied his contention that the meeting was sufficiently attended.

The principal agenda of the meeting was considered, which revolved around the evaluation of Continuing Education Credits for nurses with a view of ensuring that the Board considers only top-notch nurses. In this regard, the Board determined the determining criteria to establish candidates who were best qualified to manage their sites. The criteria included: Ground Water Surface Water Interactions, which required 15 technical CECs before recruiting the candidate. The other criterion was the Prevention of Adverse Community Exposure, whereby candidates viable for enlisting were expected to have attained two regulatory and technical CEC. Further, the Managing the PFAS (Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) Contamination criterion required 1.5 regulatory and five technical CECs from candidates. Lastly, the Natural Disaster Resilience criterion demanded 5.5 technical CECs from candidates. All members plausibly approved the plan, rendering the decision made by the Board final insofar as the criteria for admitting new candidates into the New Jersey nursing profession was concerned.

The members actively participated in the object of the meeting through various interactions that kept the meeting leveled and sufficiently active in the domain. The Audit Committee leader, Jorge Berkowitz, furnished a report which confirmed that six LSRPs (Licensed Site Remediation Professionals) were selected for audit in the current month of October. Further, the Finance Committee head, Christopher Motta, confirmed that thanks to the Board’s approval of the budget for the fiscal year 2019, the Committee would be enabled to prepare the Annual Board Fee Calculation Report. Further, he underscored that the Committee would send the final report to the Executive Director by the end of that week and to the Board before the next meeting. The report would be published in the New Jersey Registry.

The Licensure Committee leader, Kathi Stetser, reported that 73 applicants had been endorsed to sit for the licensing exam due to commence on October 17, 2018. However, she regretted a justifiable delay in notifying the candidates of their approvals due to the Exam Administrator’s technical issues. Notwithstanding the inconveniences, she assured the Board that notifications would happen more briskly next time through a frequent liaison with the Exam Administrator to ensure that things are running as expected to avoid excessive delays. The Professional Conduct Committee head, Phill Brilliant, moved a motion to discuss various complaints furnished to the Board in a closed session. The latter motion was positively received and approved by all members, which caused the Chairman to carry it. There were no reports from the Outreach Committee and the Rules Committee.

Confirming that there were no further reports from the various committees, the Chairman notified the Board of a resignation notice by one of the most veteran Board members, Connie Tsentas, who opined that he would resign by December 2018. The Chairman applauded that the member had served the Board incredibly well and that he would be missed. The Executive Director, Janine MacGregor, was accorded a special platform as the meeting was about to adjourn. She congratulated the members of the Board for conducting the meeting in an organized fashion and encouraged them to continue with the same spirit. In addition to that, she made the Board aware that her office had contacted the Commissioner’s office in light of new appointments into the Board but did not receive feedback as to when the same would happen. On top of that, she asserted that she had also reached out to the Commissioner’s Deputy Chief and informed him that several Board members still served past their expired terms. The meeting was adjourned at 5:43 p.m. after the date for the next meeting was confirmed and scheduled for October 15, which would be after two weeks.

Plausibly, Robert’s Rules of Order were maintained throughout the meeting, which was palpable when the Chairman maintained the order in ensuring that motions proceeded chronologically. Essentially, Robert’s Rules of Order maintains that meetings should be democratic, orderly, fair, and efficient (Price, 2021). The rules further provide that a competent Chairperson allows members to voice their opinions in an orderly and respectful fashion and ensures that members wishing to do so are heard (Price, 2021). The meeting was outstandingly adherent to the organization’s purpose and the promotion of professional nursing development because it ensured that aspiring nurses satisfied the conditions of the CEC about qualifications.